The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
Is it not possible that the pumping of Trump with all manner of drugs, including steroids, could be giving him a false impression of how energetic he feels. Some sort of an adrenalin rush or something.
And once the effects wear off he will go back to where he was before?
Trump is going to be hopped up on the juju juice from now till election day.
Plus Biden now up by 4 in North Carolina, where Trump won by 4 in 2016. Polling all conducted after Trump's hospitalisation.
PPP are a B-rated pollster but it's not insignificant. There have now been a series of polls showing Biden leading in NC so I've moved the state into the Biden column on my mastermap.
Just the News (JTN) have a new national poll carried out for them by Scott Rasmussen:
To be fair, it's more about Trump losing ground than Biden gaining but the net effect is poor for the President as Biden now leads 51-43. Among White voters Trump leads 50-44 (compared with 58-37 in 2016) so that's a 7.5% swing to Biden so any improvement Trump has made among Hispanics for example is more than offset by his deteriorating position among White voters.
In 2016, Trump won male voters 54-41 now Biden leads 49-47 - that's also a 7.5% swing. Among women, there's been little change. Trump has lost support among the group you'd perhaps least expect - white men.
Trump is back ahead with over 65s though in that poll and leads all voters over 45 but Biden's big lead with younger voters, especially under 35s, puts him in front.
Trump is also doing better with black voters than he did in 2016, on 12% to 8% then, the swing against him is mainly with young white voters
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Numerous posts on here today about the problems with excel.
But surely the point is that the senior people in charge - at PHE, Dept of Health etc should have had a broad feel for the numbers - they shouldn't have to wait for numbers to come out of Excel and then blindly accept them.
The MD of a big business doesn't just wait for the Finance Dept to report the numbers and then blindly accept them - the MD will have a broad feeling for how business is going.
Moving down the chain of command - if a Finance Manager gets their assistant to prepare a spreadsheet they shouldn't just blindly accept the result that pops out - they should review it and do a reasonableness check etc.
The big question is why didn't the people in charge have a feel for the numbers?
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
I did think Clinton in 2016 refusing to lie about Coal's prospects was a remarkable piece of honesty for a politician.
Had fracking kicked off in the USA to the degree it has now ? Even Biden is pro-fracking, the USA does have vast swathes of land that aren't particularly near people in a way we simply don't though.
I did think Clinton in 2016 refusing to lie about Coal's prospects was a remarkable piece of honesty for a politician.
Had fracking kicked off in the USA to the degree it has now ? Even Biden is pro-fracking, the USA does have vast swathes of land that aren't particularly near people in a way we simply don't though.
Yes, fracking was full steam ahead in 2016, well known and mainstream.
I did think Clinton in 2016 refusing to lie about Coal's prospects was a remarkable piece of honesty for a politician.
Had fracking kicked off in the USA to the degree it has now ? Even Biden is pro-fracking, the USA does have vast swathes of land that aren't particularly near people in a way we simply don't though.
Yes, fracking was full steam ahead in 2016, well known and mainstream.
Coal was obviously utterly doomed in 2016
Some states have banned it. Most notably New York.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population...
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
HYUFD keeps repeating (and repeating) that young Blacks are more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than they were in 2016.
Personally think this is load of malarkey.
Could HYUFD or some other kind (or otherwise) PBer please supply the source for the assertion? Preferably multiple sources, with margins of error for young African American voter sub-samples?
HYUFD keeps repeating (and repeating) that young Blacks are more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than they were in 2016.
Personally think this is load of malarkey.
Could HYUFD or some other kind (or otherwise) PBer please supply the source for the assertion? Preferably multiple sources, with margins of error for young African American voter sub-samples?
The only polling I've seen is l young African Americans vs old African Americans not 2016 vs 2020
I did think Clinton in 2016 refusing to lie about Coal's prospects was a remarkable piece of honesty for a politician.
Had fracking kicked off in the USA to the degree it has now ? Even Biden is pro-fracking, the USA does have vast swathes of land that aren't particularly near people in a way we simply don't though.
Note that Pennsylvania is THE poster-child for fracking in USA today.
CNN just now had a series of polls conducted 1st to the 4th of October .
The standout number 62% of over 65s disapprove of Trumps handling of covid .
60% overall say the same , the highest since the pandemic started .
The best part about Biden's polling is that it's built so much on his appeal to over 65s, a very high propensity voting group. If Sanders had identical numbers against Trump I'd be much more nervous as it would likely be built on an unfathomably large 18 - 30 yr old lead... who then probably wouldn't bother voting.
HYUFD keeps repeating (and repeating) that young Blacks are more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than they were in 2016.
Personally think this is load of malarkey.
Could HYUFD or some other kind (or otherwise) PBer please supply the source for the assertion? Preferably multiple sources, with margins of error for young African American voter sub-samples?
I already posted it, Trump's share of the Black vote is up to 12% from the 8% he got in 2016.
He also is back ahead with over 45s, including seniors over 65, the movement against him is mainly with young whites under 35 relative to 2016
Given France has now had more cases overall than the UK and had 69 new Covid deaths today compared to just 19 in the UK come back to us in a month or two
HYUFD keeps repeating (and repeating) that young Blacks are more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than they were in 2016.
Personally think this is load of malarkey.
Could HYUFD or some other kind (or otherwise) PBer please supply the source for the assertion? Preferably multiple sources, with margins of error for young African American voter sub-samples?
I already posted it, Trump's share of the Black vote is up to 12% from the 8% he got in 2016.
He also is back ahead with over 45s, including seniors over 65, the movement against him is mainly with young whites under 35 relative to 2016
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
You are one of a very few Trump cheerleaders on here and you are going to see him wiped out in November
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
Trump only won because of quirks of their voting system, with our voting system he'd have likely lost.
From coverage, the "release" of Trumpsky from Walter Reed to the (fully medically equipped) White House is LESS like Bojo Comes Home, and MORE like The Escape of Frankenstein.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
You are one of a very few Trump cheerleaders on here and you are going to see him wiped out in November
And good riddance
No, I am not, I would vote for Biden in November (but Republican for Congress) as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016, I believe only MrEd on here and AveIt are Trump supporters
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
Even your beloved Rasmussen has Biden 8 points ahead.
Numerous posts on here today about the problems with excel.
But surely the point is that the senior people in charge - at PHE, Dept of Health etc should have had a broad feel for the numbers - they shouldn't have to wait for numbers to come out of Excel and then blindly accept them.
The MD of a big business doesn't just wait for the Finance Dept to report the numbers and then blindly accept them - the MD will have a broad feeling for how business is going.
Moving down the chain of command - if a Finance Manager gets their assistant to prepare a spreadsheet they shouldn't just blindly accept the result that pops out - they should review it and do a reasonableness check etc.
The big question is why didn't the people in charge have a feel for the numbers?
That's what I was saying yesterday. It baffles me that nobody spotted the issue, if not the cause, almost immediately. People in the chain of command should have had an idea of what to expect each day, and when they noticed a divergence at the very least they should start asking questions.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
The reason for the big Boris vote IMHO. Prospect of PM Corbyn was not theoretical. Edit I see @Philip_Thompson has made the point.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
Even your beloved Rasmussen has Biden 8 points ahead.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
Even your beloved Rasmussen has Biden 8 points ahead.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
It's a theory that has much appeal to it, so fingers crossed. Like many I won't believe he's lost until the announcement. Probably not even then given how shameless some of his backers are.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
You are one of a very few Trump cheerleaders on here and you are going to see him wiped out in November
And good riddance
No, I am not, I would vote for Biden in November (but Republican for Congress) as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016, I believe only MrEd on here and AveIt are Trump supporters
I don't believe you. You're a Pollyanna for Trump.
Did you get around to considering why Trafalgar gave Trump a 5% lead in Nevada? A state he lost by 2.4%.
No doubt you'll continue to consider them the gold standard and only one that matter because you will just blindly ignore all their flaws and failures and concentrate only on the states they fluked right.
From coverage, the "release" of Trumpsky from Walter Reed to the (fully medically equipped) White House is LESS like Bojo Comes Home, and MORE like The Escape of Frankenstein.
Who will be monitoring his drug induced euphoria and so on now? Just his personal doctor?
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
Even your beloved Rasmussen has Biden 8 points ahead.
If the election were tomorrow I think Biden would now narrowly win but there is still a month to go
The black swan Trump the Indestructible is looking for is for Biden to catch the bug 10 days from polling day.
I'm not sure that would do it tbh. Biden might be ill for a time but even if he ended up succumbing (by no means likely because he's a fit 77 year old) he'd still be around by election day.
Numerous posts on here today about the problems with excel.
But surely the point is that the senior people in charge - at PHE, Dept of Health etc should have had a broad feel for the numbers - they shouldn't have to wait for numbers to come out of Excel and then blindly accept them.
The MD of a big business doesn't just wait for the Finance Dept to report the numbers and then blindly accept them - the MD will have a broad feeling for how business is going.
Moving down the chain of command - if a Finance Manager gets their assistant to prepare a spreadsheet they shouldn't just blindly accept the result that pops out - they should review it and do a reasonableness check etc.
The big question is why didn't the people in charge have a feel for the numbers?
That's what I was saying yesterday. It baffles me that nobody spotted the issue, if not the cause, almost immediately. People in the chain of command should have had an idea of what to expect each day, and when they noticed a divergence at the very least they should start asking questions.
It looks like wishful thinking. Think about the chatter here and elsewhere last week; the rise seemed to be flattening out, rule of six was working, huzzah! (And it probably is- at least a bit... The KCL app which is my go-to realish time tracking has been steadyish at about 20k for about a week now. Probably only about 3 doublings from where we were at March lockdown day, but it could be a lot worse...)
Rather odd that some posters on here think Macron has something to laugh about re Covid. Paris seems on the verge of having its Bars closed and of course the 10pm curfew operates there. Marseilles was locked down and then unlocked down when the locals told Macron to get stuffed. France's Covid numbers are no better than ours and probably worse. And of course he's got a border with Spain.
Most people will look forward to a Biden presidency no doubt, but for some reason, despite people like Sanders urging his backers to support him, I still pick up the presidency that there are plenty on the american left not pleased Biden ended up getting it (not necessarily in place of Sanders, just that it was Biden), and so it could be quite amusing to see if they given Biden a really hard time once he is in office and has tackled some of the bigger Trump issues (I do think they will turn out for him though). Might be my imagination, but I get the impression John Oliver and like minded individuals are not super keen.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
Even your beloved Rasmussen has Biden 8 points ahead.
Rather odd that some posters on here think Macron has something to laugh about re Covid. Paris seems on the verge of having its Bars closed and of course the 10pm curfew operates there. Marseilles was locked down and then unlocked down when the locals told Macron to get stuffed. France's Covid numbers are no better than ours and probably worse. And of course he's got a border with Spain.
France is a mess.
I suspect the thinking behind it is 'Europe is laughing at us'(and it must be Europe, as there are better examples for Covid, and this is a remnant of the Brexit wars that some on either side seem happy to continue), and when you think about or google for an image of European leaders chuckling there's a high chance both France and Germany will be represented, even though that doesn't make the most sense here.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
You are one of a very few Trump cheerleaders on here and you are going to see him wiped out in November
And good riddance
No, I am not, I would vote for Biden in November (but Republican for Congress) as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016, I believe only MrEd on here and AveIt are Trump supporters
I don't believe you. You're a Pollyanna for Trump.
Did you get around to considering why Trafalgar gave Trump a 5% lead in Nevada? A state he lost by 2.4%.
No doubt you'll continue to consider them the gold standard and only one that matter because you will just blindly ignore all their flaws and failures and concentrate only on the states they fluked right.
No I am not, I was quite clear in 2016 I would have voted for Hillary and expected Hillary to win, however she did not and I am reluctant to make the same mistake again. You are the one who voted for Trump's chief UK cheerleader last year, Farage and the Brexit Party in the European elections, I still voted Tory.
As I said before Nevada is irrelevant, Hillary won it anyway, it was Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida which cost her the election and Trafalgar was the only pollster to call all those right. Not a single pollster got Wisconsin right (though Trafalgar did not poll it)
Most people will look forward to a Biden presidency no doubt, but for some reason, despite people like Sanders urging his backers to support him, I still pick up the presidency that there are plenty on the american left not pleased Biden ended up getting it (not necessarily in place of Sanders, just that it was Biden), and so it could be quite amusing to see if they given Biden a really hard time once he is in office and has tackled some of the bigger Trump issues (I do think they will turn out for him though). Might be my imagination, but I get the impression John Oliver and like minded individuals are not super keen.
I am probably one of the biggest Biden bulls on here.
Well I presume that's only in relation to a Covid-19 vaccine, but still troubling since no doubt the reason is the issue has been politicised. Even with the whole 'vaccines cause autism' hullaballo I'm not sure at what point person freedom fetishists turned against vaccination.
It looks like wishful thinking. Think about the chatter here and elsewhere last week; the rise seemed to be flattening out, rule of six was working, huzzah! (And it probably is- at least a bit... The KCL app which is my go-to realish time tracking has been steadyish at about 20k for about a week now. Probably only about 3 doublings from where we were at March lockdown day, but it could be a lot worse...)
Not me though. I didn't think the effects of the new measures could have been quite so quickly effective. If I was involved I would definitely have been annoying people with questions about what is going on. I think MikeL is right that the people in charge need a feel for the numbers, they have got to pass a smell test, or a sanity check. Just accepting them is asking for trouble, as we've now seen.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
Most people will look forward to a Biden presidency no doubt, but for some reason, despite people like Sanders urging his backers to support him, I still pick up the presidency that there are plenty on the american left not pleased Biden ended up getting it (not necessarily in place of Sanders, just that it was Biden), and so it could be quite amusing to see if they given Biden a really hard time once he is in office and has tackled some of the bigger Trump issues (I do think they will turn out for him though). Might be my imagination, but I get the impression John Oliver and like minded individuals are not super keen.
I am probably one of the biggest Biden bulls on here.
I think he is a fucking awful candidate.
Many do, though when people are pushing him (and I doubt anyone on either side is going to be even pretending to hold back on their support for one side over the other now - it's full on 'Vote X and you are a racist/traitor) I figured they'd fake more enthusiasm. It cannot be about balance, given general approaches.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
More disturbing than the Republicans shameful double-standards in rushing ABC through?
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
That isn't in his power. The numbers on the Supreme Court are set by Congress.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
Pedantry is a grand old tradition, but I'd maintain that that point and my 'barely better' are not contradictory, particularly if you compare how much worse France and the UK are to someone else, like Germany. Suddenly the same gap looks smaller.
Given differences in reporting and so on between nations I doubt being very precise with the figures matters all that much - there are clearly places with accurate reporting (like I assume most of Europe's would be, for the most part) which are doing pretty badly, and those that are not, on such measures. UK/Spain/Italy are doing a bit worse than France, and all of them a lot worse than Germany, on that measure, but we don't appear to give Boris a pass for Spain's dpm being worse than ours, and I cannot see the French giving Macron a pass for theirs being better than ours. He's just luckier in his opponents.
Most people will look forward to a Biden presidency no doubt, but for some reason, despite people like Sanders urging his backers to support him, I still pick up the presidency that there are plenty on the american left not pleased Biden ended up getting it (not necessarily in place of Sanders, just that it was Biden), and so it could be quite amusing to see if they given Biden a really hard time once he is in office and has tackled some of the bigger Trump issues (I do think they will turn out for him though). Might be my imagination, but I get the impression John Oliver and like minded individuals are not super keen.
I am probably one of the biggest Biden bulls on here.
Comments
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
As equally ill-qualified medico-politico advisor, am strongly urging employment of (medical) leaches: suck early and often!
Plexiglass to separate Harris and Pence at VP debate
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/05/plexiglass-harris-and-pence-vp-debate-426514
Pence's campaign opposed the move.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
But surely the point is that the senior people in charge - at PHE, Dept of Health etc should have had a broad feel for the numbers - they shouldn't have to wait for numbers to come out of Excel and then blindly accept them.
The MD of a big business doesn't just wait for the Finance Dept to report the numbers and then blindly accept them - the MD will have a broad feeling for how business is going.
Moving down the chain of command - if a Finance Manager gets their assistant to prepare a spreadsheet they shouldn't just blindly accept the result that pops out - they should review it and do a reasonableness check etc.
The big question is why didn't the people in charge have a feel for the numbers?
https://twitter.com/JoshDorner/status/1313197760863141893
Coal was obviously utterly doomed in 2016
Punters think Trump has 'survived' the 'infection' his team claim he has had.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
The standout number 62% of over 65s disapprove of Trumps handling of covid .
60% overall say the same , the highest since the pandemic started .
Personally think this is load of malarkey.
Could HYUFD or some other kind (or otherwise) PBer please supply the source for the assertion? Preferably multiple sources, with margins of error for young African American voter sub-samples?
https://twitter.com/alxprce/status/1313159257911627778
He also is back ahead with over 45s, including seniors over 65, the movement against him is mainly with young whites under 35 relative to 2016
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-10/HRCT.pdf
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
NOT much to hang yer hat on.
And good riddance
https://twitter.com/peterbachmd/status/1313194519744122887
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep30
Everyone is having the battle of all battles as per Ireland tonight and now Italy
The idea Macron and Merkel have anythimg to be smug about is nonsense
Note that POTUS has fully-equipped & staffed medical facilities WHEREVER she or he may be.
Indeed, probably two just in case one is unavailable.
God help us.
Prospect of PM Corbyn was not theoretical.
Edit I see @Philip_Thompson has made the point.
Now.
Did you get around to considering why Trafalgar gave Trump a 5% lead in Nevada? A state he lost by 2.4%.
No doubt you'll continue to consider them the gold standard and only one that matter because you will just blindly ignore all their flaws and failures and concentrate only on the states they fluked right.
Jeez.
BUT what does statement say about the mental fitness of Dr. Feelgood?
France is a mess.
https://twitter.com/DrewHeskett/status/1313155848466771973?s=19
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/10/05/rel12a.-.coronavirus.pdf
As I said before Nevada is irrelevant, Hillary won it anyway, it was Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida which cost her the election and Trafalgar was the only pollster to call all those right. Not a single pollster got Wisconsin right (though Trafalgar did not poll it)
I think he is a fucking awful candidate.
Move the lecterns 3 metres apart fine - no one will notice. Put a whacking great piece of plexiglass up and every viewer will be thinking about covid
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Depends on the margin... and on whether Trump suffers long-Covid effects imo.
Gee if only there were some way to have stopped that happening.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313220863735533570
Given differences in reporting and so on between nations I doubt being very precise with the figures matters all that much - there are clearly places with accurate reporting (like I assume most of Europe's would be, for the most part) which are doing pretty badly, and those that are not, on such measures. UK/Spain/Italy are doing a bit worse than France, and all of them a lot worse than Germany, on that measure, but we don't appear to give Boris a pass for Spain's dpm being worse than ours, and I cannot see the French giving Macron a pass for theirs being better than ours. He's just luckier in his opponents.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312936354343522304?s=20
It is largely Biden giving the Democrats a chance of winning enough rustbelt swing states to win the electoral college